desire to determine where the line is drawn between a fancy niche and criminality, and it struck me that this was a good time for you to use odiou srks odious duplicity. we continue with the breaking news out of the john edwards trial. the jury did announce a unanimous verdict on just one of the six charges that have been leveled against the former presidential candidate. he's facing 30 years. the judge then sent the jury back into the jury room to encourage them to further deliberate on the other five, thinking it was like a locker room speech in the fourth quarter. go back in there and get it done, don done. to help explain this, we go to

gabe in greensboro, north carolina. >> reporter: it started before lunch when the jury was brought into court, and for the first time the jury asked to work through the lunch break, so many people here thought something must be going on. shortly after the lunch hour when the court came back from recess, as you've been discussing, we heard that the jury had reached a verdict. the courtroom had been opened. even the judge expected a verdict on all six counts, but then when the jury was brought in, as we've been discussing, the foreman said they only reached a unanimous verdict on one count. that is count 3, the count relating to the charge of the illegal exam pacampaign contrib in 2008. it is interesting to know that in 2007, because that was the previous count, but the jury had not -- did not return a verdict on that count. so right now the speculation is, what is going through the jurors' minds. when we heard that the jury had

only reached a verdict on one count, there was a lot of confusion in the courtroom. edwards' attorneys actually asked for a mistrial to be declared on the other five counts and for that verdict on the one count to be read aloud. the judge called a five-minute break and then called everyone back in and said she was not going to reveal the verdict on that one count and then ordered the jurors to go and continue deliberating for the rest of the afternoon. now, this does pose or bring up several questions. for example, tomorrow jurors had asked to leave early at 2:30, so right now we don't know how much longer they plan to deliberate, and what is going through the jurors' minds right now, if they'll end up deadlocked or what. it's a very bizarre set of circumstances that many legal experts here say they've never seen before. dylan? >> the legal expert happens to be with us, former prosecutor john q. kelly. have you ever seen anything like this, john? >> never seen anything like it, heard anything like it.

it's extremely unprecedented. the verdict said they had reached a unanimous verdict. left out the footnote that it was only one of the six counts, and apparently the judge was just as surprised as everybody else in the courtroom at this point. >> conceptualize this for us. the magnitude is 30 years that he faces, the pundit legal class from the front, the right, the center, the election commission saying, this is very offensive. you heard it from john in the martin bashir panel, this is not criminal. do you greagree with that analy or is it as cut and dried as people suggest, and is that

ambiguity contributing? >> legally, i think the facts were there, the law was there to support a prosecution. was it cut and dried? obviously not, because the jury is, you know, appears to be if not hopelessly mired in deep disagreement right now in terms of five of the six counts. the appellate courts will probably make a decision down the road whether it was a witch hunt or permissibly feasible under the laws in the legislation down the road if he's convicted of one or more counts. >> how, if at all, do you interpret those who reference the sec approving this type of expenditure as a benchmark for their legal opinion? >> well, you know, it's very interesting input. these sec representatives were not allowed to testify in trial because basically they would be giving a legal conclusion to the jury basically saying that edwards did not violate the campaign laws in our minds, and that would have been the end of

the prosecution. but it is something that has to be sorted out, and unfortunately, dylan, the only way it's going to be sorted out is if edwards is convicted of one or more counts in its review by the appellate court. so, i mean, he's either going to fall on his sword and be the benchmark case for the future sec regulations, or if he walks, it will be exclusive to him, anyway. >> stick with me, if you don't mind, john. i want to ask pete williams to join us, also savannah guthrie who are legal analysts. savannah, your thoughts on what you witnessed up to this point. >> well, it's an incredibly per pl -- perplexing trial. i just heard that the jury has reached verdicts on all six counts. that is, this jury thought they

had reached a verdict on all six counts, so when the judge said, is your verdict unanimous, they said, no, only on count 3. this was a jury who felt their work was done, although they never apparently came right out and said, judge, we can't reach a verdict. we're deadlocked as to those other counts. nevertheless, the trial is proceeding this afternoon as though they had said those magic words. the idea is to blow up the deadlock. it essentially tells the jurors it's your duty to get in there and deliberate. no future jury will have an easier time resolving these issues. potentially lawyers never want to have that instruction read to the jurors, and in that courtroom, the defense attorneys wanted to declare a mistrial as to the other counts and not have count 3 read aloud. they continue to deliberate this

afternoon. >> give us a sense of where we are right now and a mistrial. >> i don't think this should surprise anybody because of the complexity of this case and the novel way in which the government was applying campaign finance law. remember what the jury has to sort through. first of all, they have to decide what the intent was -- and remember, the whole government's theory here is that these campaign contributions were illegal because they exceeded the federal limit of what you could give. that's the essence of the case here. so the jury, first of all, has to decide whether the donors acted illegally and knew it was wrong and knew they were violating the law. then they had to decide whether john edwards knew that this was illegal, and he acted illegally knowing that he accepted the contributions, that that was illegal, and finally that he failed to disclose them. so they had to go through all of those steps before they could answer the question about whether he was guilty or not guilty. as you've been talking about here, several experts in the law, two former chairmen of the

federal elections commission, have said these were clearly not covered by campaign finance law, that they were not campaign contributions. this wasn't money to do what campaigns normally do, buying advertising and paying for trips and campaign rallies and get out the vote things, but the federal government's theory was that this was money spent to influence an election. so at the end of the day, that's what the jury had to decide here, is the donors intend this money to influence the election? and the judge in the instructions said, you don't have to decide that that's the only thing that the donors had in mind if you conclude that that was one of the things that the donors intended, was that this money influence an election. that's why i say, dylan, no one should be surprised that the jury has really been struggling with this. >> what of the -- john, are you still there? what of john's point that in the event that the fec ruling was admitted and that the jury was

able to hear the precedent for the history of federal election commission opinions, the entire process could be quite different. does that reconcile with you, pete? >> well, i think the place for that will be in the court of appeals if the jury convicts john edwards on any of these counts. and that's why i think -- we should all remember, this isn't over no matter what the jury says, unless it's an acquittal, because the -- if he's convicted on any of these counts, his lawyers will appeal, and, you know, i think many of the legal experts think that there is actually a pretty good shot at getting this overturned on appeal because this is an unpress debtd areunpre unprecedented area, and as you know, dylan, when they originally brought this charge and said we have to send a message to candidates and donors that we don't want a lot of money to influence and corrupt campaign, since then we had a number of court decisions that

led to these super pacs and now individuals can give an unlimited amount of money to super pacs to influence an election. so you could almost argue that the whole kind of purpose of this thing has totally changed since the original charges were brought. >> savannah, let's pick it up right there. no secret, i have been very out spoken, specifically on this subject. i'd like to reference the fact that 196 people are providing 80% of all the super pac money for every election. they are financing 80% of all the campaigns. i'm encouraged to see that my government is so incredibly motivated to prosecute and send a message on finance as a toxic and destabilizing force in our electoral system, and am i naive to suggest that we might see come forth a meaningful and aggressive movement to make tra transparent the billions of dollars that will be spent in

this upcoming election that are obviously quite potentially toxic much as the funding for john edwards' mistress was obviously greatly influential in its own right? is this not a sign of things to come? why are you laughing at me? >> i'm just thinking, we know where you stand, dylan. a couple points i would make. first of all, the fact this is all so confusing, that the landscape has changed so much actually goes to one of the legal issues in the case, which was intent. there was a very high bar here for prosecutors to have to establish that john edwards willfully and knowingly broke these laws when many, many people think it was not at all obvious that this kind of money coming in to hide a mistress would be considered a campaign kr c contribution. they couldn't bring in a former

fec commissioner to testify that these were not the kind of contributions that he would accept in the law. but they had someone quite persuasive to jurors. they had the former officer of finance whose job it was to file these reports. she was able to testify that later, after this indictment, after everything was out, the fec told her, you know, there is no reason to report these as campaign contribution s on your form. and that was pretty compelling evidence that the fec themselves did not consider these to be campaign contributions. >> karen, susan and jimmy are now with us. i might have turned lemons into lemonade, if you haven't heard. we're concerned we have such an aggressive bend in our prosecuteorial offices, and if

they're willing to hide a campaign contribution, just imagine what they would do with a democratic or republican party spending a billion dollars in secret. >> what no one has talked about in this is john edwards is a multi-zillionaire, all right? >> and he's a duplicitous man, as martin would say. >> martin is correct. why would you ask a campaign donor, someone to donate money to cover up your mistress when you already have enough money to begin with. >> you're saying the man is cheap. >> no, i'm saying his political prowess went out of their way to get a campaign donor to get money to cover up his mistress. >> do you think that's part of his intellectual prowess or cheapness?

when we look at, obviously accept a man as a felonious, duplicitous pick, shall we say, where is the line drawn between odious duplicity and criminal intent, and who gets to draw those lines? >> well, to jimmy's point as part of that answer, the issue is not why didn't john edwards use his own money, they already said he didn't use his own money because he was trying to hide it from elizabeth. what the case is trying to prove is was he trying to protect his viability as a candidate? that's where -- you really are a duplicitous jerk when you're trying to -- you know, this one, i have to say, though, dylan, for me, it's personal, obviously, because of my relationship with elizabeth, and i think that's part of what the jury is struggling with, and that is, you know, how to

separate out your personal feelings from what savannah and the rest of the legal team here today did really a fantastic job kind of laying out the steps. the question i keep coming back to is, i can accept that maybe the fec said you don't have to report this and that it may be sin in terms of applications of the law. but in the context of conversations that we've had about honey and politics, the idea that a donor can give you that kind of money -- >> i think you would. we can do whatever you want. we'll violate whatever, i'll get a condo in every city in america. what do you think, susan? >> what i don't understand is the prosecution is saying this is a campaign contribution. i have explained many, many times what contributions are. >> the campaign questions we're

spending money. >> i don't understand what code this would fall under. karen, maybe you can help me out on this one. when you go through your reportings, what do you put that under? >> but guys, i think the point is -- the point is, i agree, but the point is, don't we think there is something a little bit odd with the idea that a donor would just say, you know what? i'm going to give you a million bucks. get your hair cut, hide your mistress, whatever you need. maybe it's not law that applies. >> any more than a billion for you, a billion for me, we don't disclose it -- anyway, listen, everybody stays. this is one of those days where cable television audiences are delighted with the opportunity. this is an all play. one is an all play. we're back after this. aspirin, for pain? can't remember the last time i took aspirin. i don't think aspirin's for body pain.

aspirin is just old school. people have doubts about taking aspirin for pain. but they haven't experienced extra strength bayer advanced aspirin. in fact, in a recent survey, 92% of people who tried it said they would buy it again. what's different? it has micro-particles. enters the bloodstream fast and rushes relief to the site of pain. visit fastreliefchallenge.com today for a special trial offer. crazy, right ? well, with this droid razr by motorola on verizon 4g lte, you guys can stay in touch. ( grunts ) cool. you can video call on skype... send photos. yeah, okay. yeah, let's do it. get $100 off any motorola 4g lte smartphone, like the droid 4 now just $99.99. verizon. can help make you a better investor. our new e-trade 360 investing dashboard

shows you where your money is, live. e-trade pro is so usable you'll actually use it. and our apps are the ultimate in mobile investing. become a better investor at e-trade. with hand-layered pasta, tomatoes, and real mozzarella cheese. but what makes us even prouder... is what our real dinners can do for your family. stouffer's. let's fix dinner.

breaking news here from gabe at the courthouse. hi, gabe. >> hi, dylan. within the past few seconds, we have learned that the jury has found john edwards not guilty on count 3 and has deadlocked on the five other counts in this indictment. this is a huge case with huge implication for finance law, and in the past few seconds we have learned the verdict on count 3 which we had early in the day the jury had reached the verdict on only one count, but the judge would not allow the verdict to be read. in the past few second, we have learned the jury has found john

edwards not guilty on count 3. that is the charge that he accepted illegal campaign contributions from rachel buddy melon in 2008. his lawyers had said that -- his lawyers had said that this money was private gifts and that edwards did not know there was anything illegal about it, but now we know he was found not guilty on that charge and the jury has deadlocked on the other five counts. >> we were just told all the other counts are a mistrial, so there you go. not guilty on the count as you just heard and the balance of the counts declared a mistrial. john kelley is with us. your thoughts, sir? >> this is like an express train this afternoon. for edwards, i think you take any not guilty on any count right now. i think he would have felt a little bit better about what happened today, and the government was going to retry the case if there was a not guilty on counts 4 and 5, the

more compelling counts. he's not guilty on the one count. the judge already declared it a mistrial, apparently, with a deadlocked jury. this is only maybe an hour after she sent them back with the very abbreviated charge to go back and deliberate some more. >> so walk us through the next little bit here. >> well, the next little bit is the jury will be discharged and the government will have to make a decision on whether they want to try edwards again on -- there's going to be a question of whether five counts or six counts, and that might even go up on appeal whether the government can prosecute him on the count 3 he is found not guilty on. >> if you listen to the cacophony, and you are a federal prosecutor, why would you retry this case? >> i don't think you do, and i think this is going to go right up to the top at the justice department. like you were talking about earlier, the landscape has

changed. there is no purpose, really, in the prosecution right now, and dylan, i compare it a little bit to the barry bonds trial where sort of the public perception is he used steroids, if he didn't use steroids, he wouldn't have broken the home run record, but who cares? is it worth the federal prosecution and the resources to prosecute him on that kind of crime when it doesn't impact any of our other lives right now. >> if you were to look at the cultural implications of the statement you just made, it's to suggest that we've gone from being shocked that there is gambling in casablanca to, of course, that's what we do in washington, d.c., of course there's secret money paying for everything, and that's how we run our country. >> you said it's no secret anymore, it's all super pac money, you have a large number of donors giving money in every aspect. not just presidential elections but every aspect of the individual license of people running for office right now.

>> susan is sitting next to me going through a process. i'm watching her facial expressions as she digests the information. >> i just can't think what's next. it's over, i hope we don't talk about it anymore, because it's been a complete waste of time from everyone's point of view. >> james? >> i'm going to start placing bets as to which member of congress in which the senate files billed when they get back from vacation as to whether or not personal money from millionaires and billionaires has to be reported on your fec filings. it should be, by the way. >> and karen, i think for everybody involved in this conversation, you understand the emotional aspects of it certainly better than any of us do. your thoughts in sifting through the emotions of john edwards'

role in our society, a c contempusuos odious nature, but your thoughts on some of the reconciliation of that nature. >> on the one hand, i think clearly there was an attempt to make this case, to sort of use this to make an example. that didn't work out. still, i think to the point you've been making or we've been making, it's still a very relevant question in campaign finance law, but obviously this case was not the place to try to do it. what i would say on a personal level is i think what john was saying is right. not guilty on all counts would have been better for john edwards because, again, it makes it easier for him and the family to move on, but certainly not guilty on one of the key counts, and then the idea that the others are a mistrial still gives them the opportunity, i

think, to move on as a family. i don't see the government going after this any further, and that's really what i want is for this family to have some peace. >> we take a momentary break where john edwards has been found a mistrial, and one of six counts he was found not guilty. we return to greensboro after this. [ female announcer ] to get a professional cleansing system you could spend as much as $200. olay says challenge that with an instrument that cleanses as effectively as what's sold by skin professionals

for a whole lot less. olay pro x advanced cleansing system. the day starts with arthritis pain... a load of new listings... and two pills. after a morning of walk-ups, it's back to more pain, back to more pills. the evening showings bring more pain and more pills. sealing the deal... when, hang on... her doctor recommended aleve. it can relieve pain all day with fewer pills than tylenol. this is lois... who chose two aleve and fewer pills for a day free of pain. and get the all day pain relief of aleve in liquid gels. like a ramen noodle- every-night budget. she thought allstate car insurance was out of her reach. until she heard about the value plan. see how much you could save with allstate. are you in good hands? mcallen, texas. in here, heavy rental equipment in the middle of nowhere, is always headed somewhere. to give it a sense of direction, at&t created

a mobile asset solution to protect and track everything. so every piece of equipment knows where it is, how it's doing or where it goes next. ♪ this is the bell on the cat. [ male announcer ] it's a network of possibilities -- helping you do what you do... even better. ♪

on the beat at the federal courthouse in greensboro, north carolina. a mistrial and a not guilty verdict. what can you tell us in terms of the environment, response and/or comments of anybody involved at this point, gabe? >> well, dylan, as you've been reporting, this has been a very bizarre afternoon. you mentioned five counts of mistrial and then one not guilty count, that count 3 regarding the so-called funny money. we're waiting to hear from the jury. we're told the jurors will be

allowed to speak to the media if they so choose once they reach their cars, but from what we understand they're still back there at the courthouse. we don't know exactly what went through their minds as they deliberated during this trial. we're also waiting to hear, of course, from john edwards. the expectation is that john edwards himself will say something. it appears to be a very good afternoon for him, not guilty on one count and a mistrial on the others. and of course we expect to hear from the prosecution. by all accounts, legal experts say this is a very difficult afternoon for prosecutors and many people find it hard to believe they'll actually go through the trouble of retrying edwards on these five counts that the jurors are deadlocked on. we have a lot of unanswered questions at this point. we're waiting for reaction from jurors, from edwards and from prosecutors. >> your thoughts? >> i'm sure the justice department hasn't decided whether to retry or not, and i think there are factors that push in both directions. against the idea of retrying is this case was controversial from the beginning.

this is sort of an untested area of campaign finance law as we've been discussing this afternoon. many experts here, former chairman of the federal elections commission charged with enforcing the law thought this money under no stretch came under the umbrella of campaign finance law, so the prosecution itself, when it was originally brought, was controversial. then you have the fact that this is obviously a very difficult question for a jury to sort through, and when they were able to sort through on it, they found him not guilty. so you have all of that, plus as we've been discussing this afternoon, the thought that this whole area of funny money and politics has changed so radically since this case was first brought with the birth of super pacs. i guess we have to consider the one counter-veiling point might be this. john edwards ran for president as a democrat. this is a democratic situation. i suppose if the government decides not to retry the case,

some people will say, ha ha, because he's a democrat and this is a democratic administration, they won't retry it. they have to think about that and consider it, but there are other factors as well. the whole area of campaign finance to consider what a former public official does. for example, if the government is thinking about charging a public official and the public official agrees to step down, the government can consider that in not bringing charges. so you have to look at what's happened to john edwards here, the impact this whole trial has had on his life, what's to be gained for society? what's the message here? what's the interest in justice in proceeding with this trial again? those are all factors the justice department is going to have to consider. having said all that, dylan, i think nobody would be surprised if the government does not seek a retrial here on these charges. >> john kelly still with us. when you put it all together, and i don't mean to say this, john, to suggest any sort of negative intent because it's impossible to know, but when you

match-up the politics and whatever the original intent of the indictment was that predates a lot of things and then you look at the trend in our culture, political culture of money and politics since that time, it's hard not to look at this as one part witch hunt, understandable in the odiou odious duplicitous sense, but all the same witch hunt, and one part kangaroo court, both of which suggests that we as a culture have the opportunity to potentially upgrade the quality of our justice when it comes to money and politics. >> well, i think that's right and i think from a more practical point of view in terms of whether they'll prosecute or not, they're going to be deciding holes of congress, it's kind of like but for the grace of god. out with a mistress and carrying my child, but that trip i took,

those junkets, speaking engagements, serving on the board type thing, where do you draw the line on what's a perk and illegal and what's permissible at this point? it has not been a good day for anybody. john edwards cannot feel good that he was cleared on only one charge and the jury was hung on the other charges. it's not an overwhelming endorsement of his conduct in the legal sense, not to mention sort of the sordid conduct that was testified at in trial to begin with. so when he comes out, it's going to be very interesting. he's been very sort of trying to convey an upbeat, proud demeanor during the whole trial, the question is whether he'll carry that out now. >> you kind of feel this is sort of a parable for what happens when everybody takes the low road, starting with john edwards and right up through the prosecution and the politics and all the nonsense. a big vote for the high road, i

think, for all of us. we'll take a break and be back after this. ♪ i'm making my money do more. i'm consolidating my assets. i'm not paying hidden fees or high commissions. i'm making the most of my money. and seven-dollar trades are just the start. i'm with scottrade.

i'm with scottrade. i'm with scottrade. and i'm loving every minute of it. [ rodger riney ] at scottrade, we give you commission-free etfs, no-fee iras and more. come see why more investors are saying... i'm with scottrade. ♪ power surge, let it blow your mind. [ male announcer ] for fruits, veggies and natural green tea energy... new v8 v-fusion plus energy. could've had a v8.

of how a shipping giant can befriend a forest may seem like the stuff of fairy tales. but if you take away the faces on the trees... take away the pixie dust. take away the singing animals, and the storybook narrator... [ man ] you're left with more electric trucks. more recycled shipping materials... and a growing number of lower emissions planes... which still makes for a pretty enchanted tale. ♪ la la la [ man ] whoops, forgot one... [ male announcer ] sustainable solutions. fedex. solutions that matter.

the federal courthouse in gree greensboro, north carolina. gabe, what's the latest? >> we learned that john edwards actually waved his daughter kate over inside the courtroom and they headed to a back room. we don't know when he's coming out of the courthouse. right now there is a lunch of the media assembled by the courthouse waiting for not only john edwards but also the prosecution and jurors. many people are curious as to what was going through the jurors' minds, and we might learn that once they leave the courthouse and go to their cars. the judge has said they're free to speak to the media if they wish once they reach their cars. john edwards has waved his daughter kate and is having some sort of conversation behind closed doors at the courthouse. the prosecution and the defense need to come out and speak to the media.

dylan? >> our mega panel is, of course, with us. jimmy, any component of this simply raises awareness of campaign finance. once you get beyond the details of this specific incident, the end question is, what was it all about again? oh, it's about money ask positive and politics. is there any awareness benefit to get us closer to the measure that has to be sorted out in the next 10 or 20 years? >> this guy, john edwards, in 2004 was 15,000 votes away from being the president of the united states. think about that for a very quick second, and you can imagine had that taken place and this came out, we would have had another, if you will, watergate per se. that would not have been good for the country. that being said, we have to go back and we must take a look, the people in this building behind me must take a look at the campaign finance laws. from every single level of the

way our campaigns are conducted from super pacs to leadership pacs to individual election campaign funds, every single bit of it, no matter where you are in the stratosphere of any of that, there is always going to be corruption. you can't legislate deed but you can certainly minimize it. john edwards was too cute by an inch. he got around it with the bunny money which is obviously okay. >> staying with money and politics is obviously just super pac transparency. obviously we have our opinions about public financing, about ach amending the constitution, about all these complex laws on the books, and i believe all merit significant debate, but while we await the expanded debate on money and politics, i'm still surprised at the audacity of

both republican and democratic leadership to simply not concede. we're going to at least show you whose money it is. >> but i don't think any of that is going to happen unless we, the people, continue to put pressure on the politicians to make it happen, because it's not -- i mean, you know, it is sort of in their interest on a political level with a small p, but again, that's the way you impact change. one point i would make in the bigger scheme of things, pete's observation was really right on which was think about where we were when this case was initially brought forward and where we are now. think about what this election is going to mean in terms of -- you know, we're hearing billions and billions of dollars being spent. i think going into next year, we will have a lot to talk about and sort through in terms of money and politics. i hope we take the time to have that conversation because that's where any changes will come out. we'll have the opportunity to kind of look back and i think

this cycle will give us plenty of fodder to do so and say, wait a second, this is isn't how the system should work. but we've got to make that happen. >> and susan, on that front, you follow the path of least resistance, and you are of the belief that the path of least resistance tends to change and the pain levels get high enough for the discomfort for what you have been doing and you don't think there is enough pain yet. >> there isn't and they'll keep covering it up. congressmen will be writing to legislature to try to change it, and they may get something through to address this particular concern, and they'll all look good, but it will do nothing except get their names in the paper and make them look good. it has to hit rock bottom. you have to see people going to jail for legal actions which, let's face it, we know a lot of people have been doing a lot of things that are questionable, but as it was talked about before, when you go in for

congressional review, if you go in for an investigation, if you resign your position, they don't necessarily take those charges to the criminal court, and that's a big problem. >> jimmy, what is your sense of the marketplace of political pain at this point relative to the need to address the issue of money and politics, and how much more motivated of an electorate will it require? there's a temperature to advocate for it. david dugrau, the money outpack, you can go down the list and there is clearly this shattered but accumulating sort of desire to work on this issue. i don't know that we're ready to deliver political mayhem on this issue yet. >> i've said on your show before, this issue is like an

alcoholic. until an alcoholic hits bottom, until they know the small child as a metaphor, then they're not going to sober up. they're not going to sober up. as i said before, they're going to run around and trip over each other to write a bill saying no one can write personal checks, et cetera, et cetera, to cover up a procedure, whatever it is, but it's all completely irrelevant. i think what will be fascinating, and pete didn't come out and say this, but i will. i will be fascinated whether or not the romney campaign touches this issue if, in fact, the obama administration doesn't go back and reprosecute edwards for the other five charges of which he's now been shown as a mistrial. also the question is, how much time between now and is there a time of -- i don't know what the word i'm looking for is -- is there a time frame by which they would have to bring charges and does that come before the

elections? if i were the romney campaign, i wouldn't touch this with a ten-foot pole. the question will be, will the super pacs touch it? will they run ads and say, barack obama is covering up for a former democratic senator, a former democratic vp nominee and not prosecute him for something he did, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. that's a double-edged sword, and i'm not sure if it plays better for the republicans or the democrats. >> do they each get to keep their secret billion for 2012? they're ready to go, baby. absolutely. we'll take a break. we're back with the panel after this. d gives you a 50% annual bonus. and who doesn't want 50% more cash? ugh, the baby. huh! and then the baby bear said, "i want 50% more cash in my bed!" phhht! 50% more cash is good ri... what's that. ♪ you can spell. [ male announcer ] the capital one cash rewards card. the card for people who want 50% more cash.

what's in your wallet? ha ha. ♪ ha ha. ♪ what started as a whisper every day, millions of people choose to do the right thing. there's an insurance company that does that, too. liberty mutual insurance.

responsibility. what's your policy? really? 25 grams of protein. what do we have? all four of us, together? 24. he's low fat, too, and has 5 grams of sugars. i'll believe it when i--- [ both ] oooooh... what's shakin'? [ female announcer ] as you get older, protein is an important part of staying active and strong. ensure high protein... fifty percent of your daily value of protein. low fat and five grams of sugars. see? he's a good egg. [ major nutrition ] ensure high protein... ensure! nutrition in charge! with hand-layered pasta, tomatoes, and real mozzarella cheese. but what makes us even prouder...

is what our real dinners can do for your family. stouffer's. let's fix dinner. in absolute perfect physical condition and i had a heart attack right out of the clear blue... i'm on an aspirin regimen... and i take bayer chewables. [ male announcer ] be sure to talk to your doctor before you begin an aspirin regimen. he's my success story. [ laughs ] i'd like to thank eating right, whole grain, multigrain cheerios! mom, are those my jeans?

[ female announcer ] people who choose more whole grain tend to weigh less than those who don't. multigrain cheerios gabe at the federal court in greensboro reporting on tone, temperature and response. what happened in there? >> we're beginning to see a little more of john edwards' sense of relief after seven days of testimony, almost nine days of jury deliberation. we saw that he hugged when he heard the one count of not guilty and the five counts of mistrial, he hugged his daughter indicate and his defense team. he said this is what we prayed

for and god answered our prayers. we're still waiting to hear from john edwards himself, but he's still in the courthouse as are the jurors in this case and the prosecution. so we're waiting for that reaction. >> the mega panel is still with us, along with john kelly. john, is there news to be had here, and specifically, we're obviously going to be hearing from the jurors, probably, as the evening wears on, i would suspect, if not tomorrow and the next few days. anything of note we should listen for? >> yeah, i think the big thing is, and i'd love to be a fly on the wall in the back room with john edwards and his daughter right now. when he walks out of that courthouse, it's probably going to be the last large audience john edwards ever had, and it's going to be his one chance to maybe not rehabilitate himself but to let the public know that

he got it. he understands the pain he put his family through, his staff through, the betrayal in the public and his campaign donors, and he's got to be contrite and he's got to at least let people know the message has finally struck home. >> what do you say, karen, john edwards comes out in the middle of chris matthews' show, a half hour from now and say, i'm a n contemptuous, odious, duplicitous pig. >> if he said that, i would buy you the best dinner. there are the legal considerations and the personal considerations and some have thought that perhaps john edwards would use this and following this would try to rehabilitate himself in some public way. it remains to be seen if that's possible. but certainly, what he says next

matters a great deal, and i think it is important to convey that a lot of pain -- i think we saw that over the course of this trial -- there was a lot of pain inflicted on the people who worked for the family, for his campaign staffers as well as the family itself. so i think an acknowledgment of that, you know, in some very genuine way would be absolutely appropriate. >> james, your thoughts here as we go into a conclusion of yet another american soap opera, if nothing else? >> well, i mean, any time these kinds of things happen i always think about the obituary. by the way, john edwards has many more years to live unlike his wife, unfortunately. his obituary at least will be at the top of it. that's the burden he has to live with until his death. >> unless he invents a solar car. >> now he's raised the stakes on

himself if he wants to drop it on the obituary, susan. >> let me finish. there is a bigger issue here, which he has two young children plus kate, and so, you know, it's not like his family will have to live in his shadow for the rest of their lives. as we all know, we all have parents and most of us have children, you don't carry your parents' burden around with you. i can only just hope -- and kate is a wonderful, wonderful young woman, and his two kids, i knew them when they were really little. they were sweet, adorable kids and they're much older now, but they'll have to live in this shadow the rest of their lives and they'll never have a private life. >> karen, your thoughts here? >> i don't think they'll never have a private life. i think the family works very, very hard to protect their privacy. but it's going to be a complicated life. i think one of the things we've seen in modern times is that actually america is a country of reinvention.

you know, who knows what the future will hold. i think it's certainly possible to reinvent oneself through your good works, maybe a solar car. >> everybody is redeemed if they invent a solar car. >> but there is no mea culpa that can cover this. what i'm hoping when he comes out, he does not have his daughter standing next to him. i don't think we need to see her brought through this again and i hope he shows a little bit of dignity in that regard. >> karen, he'll say i'm a conte contemptuous, odious, duplicitous pig. >> i told him i'm on the hook for dinner if he says that.

>> there are no winners here, and dylan, when you mentioned body language, an important part of the body language in the whole trial has been john edwards going in and going out of the courthouse every day. if you've noticed, his mother and father are always in front of him or behind him, kate is always close. it's not a tight entry, ever. it's not there, and i wonder if after today the closeness might come back a little bit, there might be a little forgiveness and moving forward. i think that all goes to what he says right now and how they move forward in the next half hour with what he has to say. >> john, thank you so much for being with us for the entire hour. thanks as well to the mega panel for navigating an unconventional hour of television. i believe we navigated the anthony weiner episode together as well. we have that kind of luck, i think.

have a good afternoon, you guys. there's the courthouse. john edwards still to speak. we are back here on msnbc right after this. but when joint pain and stiffness from psoriatic arthritis hit, even the smallest things became difficult. i finally understood what serious joint pain is like. i talked to my rheumatologist and he prescribed enbrel. enbrel can help relieve pain, stiffness, and stop joint damage. because enbrel, etanercept, suppresses your immune system, it may lower your ability to fight infections. serious, sometimes fatal events including infections, tuberculosis, lymphoma, other cancers, and nervous system and blood disorders have occurred. before starting enbrel, your doctor should test you for tuberculosis and discuss whether you've been to a region where certain fungal infections are common. don't start enbrel if you have an infection like the flu. tell your doctor if you're prone to infections, have cuts or sores, have had hepatitis b, have been treated for heart failure, or if, while on enbrel, you experience persistent fever, bruising, bleeding, or paleness. [ phil ] get back to the things that matter most. ask your rheumatologist if enbrel is right for you.

[ doctor ] enbrel, the number one biolog medicine prescribed by rheumatologists. that bringing you better technology helps make you a better investor. with our revolutionary new e-trade 360 dashboard you see exactly where your money is and what it's doing live. our e-trade pro platform offers powerful functionality that's still so usable you'll actually use it. and our mobile apps are the ultimate in wherever whenever investing. no matter what kind of investor you are, you'll find the technology to help you become a better one at e-trade.

all right, welcome back as we conclude this hour here at msnbc this afternoon. it has been one of breaking news. john edwards finally gets a verdict in his trial, found to be not guilty on one count, count number 3, accepting illegal donations, and found to be at a mistrial for the balance of those counts. john edwards is still expected to speak at some point in the next few